website tracking
Search The Big Picture

« Movie Trailer - Jim Carrey's 'Yes Man' | Main | Michael Moore Giving Away His Next Movie »
Friday
05Sep2008

More 'Sherlock Holmes' Rumors for Russell Crowe

DateFriday, September 5, 2008 at 8:24AM
Have we been swerved about Sherlock Holmes? Did Guy Ritchie give us an intentional smokescreen earlier in the week when he denied that Russell Crowe would be playing Watson to Robert Downey Jr.'s master detective? After all, Ritchie never said Russell wouldn't be in the movie.

In a move that makes a lot more sense, Latino Review cites a hush-hush source who says Crowe may play Holmes' nemesis, Prof. Moriarty instead. They are, for the record, the best-matched hero and villain of their kind, and in a way, Moriarty is the first supervillain, a man with tremendous power, resources, and resiliency. Unless he's near a waterfall. It's definitely a great character, no matter how you slice it.

Of course, this isn't an official press release, so it could be as bogus as the Watson reports, but based on Crowe's terrific work in 3:10 to Yuma as a villain, playing one of the absolute best bad guys, particularly in this kind of film, may be too good to pass up for both sides. This does kind of remind me of last year's Russell Crowe rumor, that he was going to be the heavy in Star Trek. That one had more than one life, too.

As for Watson, Latino Review says the role was offered to Gerard Butler, who passed. I hope that's not true. I hope they're not trying to make Watson virile in some way. First the Crowe rumors, now the Spartan. Make him bulky, sure, but Watson was no ladies man.

Who's next on the list? David Beckham? Seriously, cut it out. Get a great, irascible actor who's got a little bit of a paunch and won't take away from Robert Downey when he's on screen.

AuthorColin Boyd | | in , , , , , | Print ArticlePrint Article | | Comment5 Comments |

Reader Comments (5)

"I hope they're not trying to make Watson virile in some way. First the Crowe rumors, now the Spartan. Make him bulky, sure, but Watson was no ladies man."

I gave you the benefit of the doubt last time. Now you appear to mistaken Nigel Bruce's interpretation for canon.

Dr. Watson was married at LEAST three times - Holmes frequently apologised for whisking him away from home and hearth. And if you need to reacquaint yourself with Watson as a "ladies man", begin with a reading of the second story, the novel The Sign of [The] Four, which ends - and sorry for the spoiler - with Watson marrying Miss Mary Morstan.

Friday, September 5, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSensaes

I mean "ladies man" in the most Hollywood-friendly sense. Larry King's been married a bunch of times. I'm not implying Watson couldn't get action, just that he shouldn't be so physically impressive on screen that he obscures Downey's Holmes. "Obscures Downey's Holmes" sounds very dirty, by the way.

He shouldn't be mistaken for a swaggering action hero. Agreed?

Friday, September 5, 2008 | Registered CommenterColin Boyd

Hmm. That probably says more about Downey's unsuitability for the part of Holmes (even a beefed-up, sabre-wielding take on the character) than it does about Watson! ;o)

Friday, September 5, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSensaes

Perhaps, although I'm on record as not loving Downey for this role in the first place.

Friday, September 5, 2008 | Registered CommenterColin Boyd

Yeah, I think Downey Jr. is better suited for a Columbo re-make than he is Holmes. I think James Cromwell is a good fit, but not the draw they are looking for, I'm sure.

And really, Cromwell would have been perfect about a decade ago, but is now too old to be sure. But a James Cromwell archetype, anyway.

As for Russell Crowe, is he slyly becoming the new Anthony Hopkins on us?

Friday, September 5, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterWill

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>